World Affairs

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 1, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[morriswalters 16]

I consider the biological relationship the most important.  Given nothing else man can continue if he can reproduce.  That some couples cannot diminishes the concept not at all.  It's not about any one couple but about the status society gives all heterosexual couples.  That relationship doesn't depend on technology or any artificial influences.  It's the only thing I can point to and say "This is why we are here".  As far as I'm concerned society exists to make it easier to survive to reproduce.  There is no culture that I am aware of that doesn't value that relationship and surround it with rituals to give it great importance.  I am perfectly will to grant equivalent prerogatives to gays.  But no equal status.  They can raise kids, live together, share health insurance, or what ever.  Think of it this way.  If you dropped six couples on three islands, two heterosexual, two gay female, two gay male, and they could never leave, and no one could come in.  What would you find in one hundred years?  When the answer is descendants on all three then I'll consider equal status.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

You fellows should take this argument to the Closet Thread in General Off Topic.

Current new topic:  The G20/G8 in Toronto/Huntsville, Ontario, Canada.

There is a current uproar about the security costs, and a lot of political posturing, but last night there were shots fired just outside the security barrier which caused a general scramble since there were security people all over the place at the time.  The cops chased a car but lost it in the west-end traffic.  The newshens, this morning, are saying that the incident had to do with the night club nearby and not the G20 which starts on the week end, but this could easily be a charade.

We are spending $1B on security for this conference, but the city is glad to have it.

Huntsville, where the G8 (with 10 observing nations) will happen is on the threshold of Algonquin Park.  Why there and not at Erehwon Pines, in the park, I'll never guess.  I would have thought that the isolated lodge in the park would be a better security control area than the town.  Political influence, I guess.

There has already been one major protest rally, yesterday.  More excitement is expected from the vacuous brains today, I suppose.  Not much point in a protest if there is nobody to listen, eh?

[astronelson 339]

So, two separate but equal systems, then? Except they're not really equal systems, are they. So long as there's a distinction between the two, one will always be inferior. So it has always been in cases such as this, and so it shall always be as long as cases like this exist.

The matter really comes down to one of pride, for want of a better word. It does not matter if marriages and civil unions are equivalent in all but name, there is always going to be that difference that says, "You are not the same as us. We tolerate you, we do not accept you. You are inferior". And that hurts deeply. It really does.

What first comes to your mind when you think of the word marriage? Hopefully not biological reproduction, that would be rather sad. What first comes to my mind is a happy couple. Compare this image to "civil union". There is no happiness in this phrase. It is a cold, clinical term, sounding better suited to sister cities or a union of civil service workers than to a loving pair of people.

So please, acknowledge this fact. Our love is not of inferior quality to that of a heterosexual couple who know they can never bear children. There is no real reason for there to be any status difference between the two unions. Why must one be forever implied?

EDIT: We're not allowed to have debates on this topic in the Closet anymore. They tended to degenerate into flame wars...

I believe both sides have made their thoughts clear, and as such I shall not continue the discussion.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 1, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

If we are done with the animal farm considerations, maybe we can consider the G20/G8 conferences, which have more to do with world affairs than what may or may not occur in the private bedrooms of the nations.

EDIT: Wednesday, 23 June 2010 04:02 PM

It would seem that Posiedon is not happy with us.  The Earth-shaker gave us a reminder.  Wonder if it was a prelude to these conferences?

[Duke87 1,070]

So, after shooting off his mouth, General McChrystal has been force choked. Petraeus is now in charge of the Afghanistan campaign.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: Duke87

So, after shooting off his mouth, General McChrystal has been force choked. Petraeus is now in charge of the Afghanistan campaign.quote>

This is in the wrong thread.  It should be in the American Politics thread.  I already added this topic there.

[Duke87 1,070]

You know, I almost put it there, but figured that since it concerned an international military campaign, it should go here.

It seems the problem is that there is overlap between what is or isn't an international affair, and thus with some topics (such as this one), it can be rather ambiguous as to which topic they belong in. Especially when a discussion obviously on one side segues into something not so obviously on said side.

[Easy Bakes 253]

I have always wondered why we have modern countrys and then 3rd World countrys.

why are there no 2nd world countrys?

[TekindusT 3,809]

I guess an international topic is the one that doesn't concern the countries that have their own discussion threads here: the US, Australia (maybe Canada?).

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: Duke87

You know, I almost put it there, but figured that since it concerned an international military campaign, it should go here.

It seems the problem is that there is overlap between what is or isn't an international affair, and thus with some topics (such as this one), it can be rather ambiguous as to which topic they belong in. Especially when a discussion obviously on one side segues into something not so obviously on said side.

quote>

Well, maybe firing the American Commander in Afghanistant needs a foot note here, but it really is a U.S. internal thing, eh?

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

I have always wondered why we have modern countrys and then 3rd World countrys.

why are there no 2nd world countrys?

quote>

They went away when the cold war ended.

Originally posted by: TekindusT

I guess an international topic is the one that doesn't concern the countries that have their own discussion threads here: the US, Australia (maybe Canada?).quote>

The idea was to get a place to discuss things that affect the overall picture of an international flavor and maybe stuff that  involves more than one country.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Since McCrystal was Obama's to fire, I really think this belongs in American Politics.  However, as a general topic for world affairs, why is it that American general officers get the bit in their teeth?  Look at MacArthur, for example.  Doesn't West Point condition these characters to not do that?

I am sure the Afghanis are relieved to see the cowboy gone, but now have to break in a new American general.  I hope he has a better head on his shoulders.

[morriswalters 16]

Actually Afghanistan is a NATO mission, so it has international relevance since the US represents the bulk of the NATO presence.  Every other member has a stake in the outcome of this SNAFU.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

True, but the divided command is causing all kinds of stupidity.  The commander should be a UN appointee, and should be permanent.  Trading it around has caused a lot of trouble.

[DocRorlach 25]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Since McCrystal was Obama's to fire, I really think this belongs in American Politics.  However, as a general topic for world affairs, why is it that American general officers get the bit in their teeth?  Look at MacArthur, for example.  Doesn't West Point condition these characters to not do that?

I am sure the Afghanis are relieved to see the cowboy gone, but now have to break in a new American general.  I hope he has a better head on his shoulders.

quote>

Don't count on it. The current crop of top brass is little different from the top brass during the Vietnam Campaign, as Iraq is proving daily.

America fights its wars the same bloody way it did during WWII and Korea: it thinks that because it has the latest & best in technology, combined with what is clearly superior numbers in field grunts, that the win ought to be automatic.

Just as it ignored the people behind the bamboo spears and outdated rifles in Vietnam, it now discounts the Taliban and the people of Afghanistan. The US and its Nato allies are in a no-win situation because they cannot control any given point in the vast landscape. During WWII, things were simple: everyone fought more or less along the same lines of tactics. And they fought against an easily identified enemy, hated by the local populace.

Both in Vietnam and Iraq, and now in Afghanistan, the enemy is largely undefined other than by tags propagated by the media and the so-called  "intelligence". Yes there are factions such as the Taliban and Al-Queda. But who supports them is not among the readily available facts. What the western strategist do not - and never did - understand is that the local mentality is just as important as the supply of weapons.

A North-Vietnamese general once told a group of reporters not five miles from the then front, that the North was going to win the war, may not tomorrow, maybe not next year, but that it would fight until it did. Less than six months later he was proven right.

The same mentality applies to both the Taliban & Al-Queda. Unless you remove the reasons why they fight, the war will only end with an utter defeat of the west. Even if Bin Laden died tomorrow, the fight would continue until the Nato Alliance retreats.

"McPistol" may have been a loose cannon where the US government is concerned, but he had the local situation right and was beginning to change the top lines in Afghan Military & government over to his long term approach. His successor is going to be yet another John Wayne going to blast his way into an even deeper hole. And eventually there will be another scene of helicopters pulling out the last of embassy staff. Maybe not this year, maybe next year, maybe in ten years time. But it will happen.

[fukuda 351]

His successor is going to be yet another John Wayne going to blast his way into an even deeper hole.quote>

His successor is General David Petraeus, he's not exactly a newb nor a John Wayne clone jokes aside. But generals, like all military men, are just obeying orders too. They can't (and they shouldn't) decide by themselves how to fight a war, neither can they decide how much money and efforts are allotted to the military campaign or manipulate the citizen's opinion about the war. It's a complex problem with factors stemming from all the parts involved, a nice mess indeed.

[DocRorlach 25]

I do know who he is, and if I am not utterly mistaken he was one of the top men in Iraq trying to convince everyone that the "surge" had worked when clearly it only delayed the inevitable.

The western alliances are incabable to learn from history: no western army since Alexander the Great has ever made a conquest of the Middle East or any nation along the Islamic crescent. And the problem is compounded by the fact that the "alliance" is one only in name. One of the top British commanders was today quoted as being unhappy with the sacking of McCrystal. The UK government has thus far been able to stretch the promised pull-out deadline to 2015. My take is that it will happen sooner, if not there'll be a thining of troops on the ground. The same will go for the other Nato forces still there, especially in countries were the government is about to change.

The Afghan campaign is a lost cause, and will only get worse.

[morriswalters 16]

What was going to happen in Afghanistan was going to happen,  If you want to think of it in a different way feel free.  But McCrystal was an idiot,  he forgot why he was there.  In the end it was to do the bidding of the US government.  He gave up certain rights when he joined and that's the way it is.  He created a situation which may well leave us worse off, but he created it.  No one else.  Under no circumstances can the government loose control of the Military.  And the longer this goes on the greater that danger.  I hope that we get out in 2011 and I don't care if we have to  push helicopters off carriers to do it.  This is the longest conflict we ever been involved in.  We need to get the troops out.  Before someone decides he can make better decisions.  If you find  my thinking alarmist, think about the muted reaction from politicians of both parties.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

What was going to happen in Afghanistan was going to happen,  If you want to think of it in a different way feel free.  But McCrystal was an idiot,  he forgot why he was there.  In the end it was to do the bidding of the US government.  He gave up certain rights when he joined and that's the way it is.  He created a situation which may well leave us worse off, but he created it.  No one else.  Under no circumstances can the government loose control of the Military.  And the longer this goes on the greater that danger.  I hope that we get out in 2011 and I don't care if we have to  push helicopters off carriers to do it.  This is the longest conflict we ever been involved in.  We need to get the troops out.  Before someone decides he can make better decisions.  If you find  my thinking alarmist, think about the muted reaction from politicians of both parties.

quote>

And made this whole war for nothing? It would have made any casualty there and every dollar spend utterly pointless and devoid of any meaning. 

Meh, we shouldnt pull out because it takes to long or because it gets tough. Were created this mess and we should clean up this mess, even if it takes another decade to do so. We should not leave before the Taliban and Al Qaida are no longer a threat to anyone. 

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: DocRorlach

I do know who he is, and if I am not utterly mistaken he was one of the top men in Iraq trying to convince everyone that the "surge" had worked when clearly it only delayed the inevitable.quote>

Petraeus was the man who is credited with development of the strategy that McChrystal adopted for use in Afghanistan.  If I remember reading correctly, Petraeus personally helped in the adaptation. 

The western alliances are incabable to learn from history...quote>

How long it will take for the the US military to transition to a military capable of effectively fighting guerilla wars is up in the air, but the evidence is there that experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan are being incorporated into military doctrine.  One does have to realize that such changes are going to take time.  For example, Special Forces have shown to be significantly more adaptable towards guerilla conflicts (largely due to their small size, advanced training, extreme flexibility, and unconventional tactics), but making significant growth to Special Forces units takes decades.

[DocRorlach 25]

The western alliances are incabable to learn from history...

How long it will take for the the US military to transition to a military capable of effectively fighting guerilla wars is up in the air, but the evidence is there that experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan are being incorporated into military doctrine.  One does have to realize that such changes are going to take time.  For example, Special Forces have shown to be significantly more adaptable towards guerilla conflicts (largely due to their small size, advanced training, extreme flexibility, and unconventional tactics), but making significant growth to Special Forces units takes decades.

quote>

Nice catch phrases, but in reality the learing should have begun during the Korean War, except that it did not. Might alone is utterly worthless, as Vietnam, Iraq, and now Afghanistan have shown. The only way to win such wars is by not fighting them in the first place. You would need to take the arrogance out of the military brass everywhere (not just the US) before ou would see a change in approaches.

While the US had no justification whatsoever to go into Iraq, it has had only a marginally more for the push into Afghanistan. 911 was neither planned nor put together in that country. And the battlecry about the hunt for Bin Laden was always hollow, since the man was never foolish enough to reside in Afghanistan: his hide-out has always been in the nomansland between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Besides, the Bush administration would not have wanted to catch the man who gave them their only raison d'etre.

The US and its reluctant allies may have removed the Taliban government, but that was no big feat, because it has not been able to remove the Taliban behind the government. And the currently ruling faction in Kabul is merely there by the grace of international arms. Remove those and it will wall.

Funny how little the G20 meeting in Toronto mentioned the war; except for Cameron's hazy promse to get UK troops out by 2015, there was hardly any mention. Because in reality, the entire campaign is a small car stuck in big mud with four flat tyres.

[morriswalters 16]

The problem with gorilla wars is not something an army can adjust to.  The concept should be the least force to get the job done.  The Taliban never should have been toppled.  As a gorilla fighter they are undefeatable.  As a government in power the paradigm works against them.   I've said this before, governments can't be gorillas in their own countries.  Declare war on them but don't invade.  Do what they do. Strike and disappear.  Don't conquer.  Don't kill the leadership, make impossible for them to rule.  They build a bridge, then blow it up.  When they build a road, destroy it.  Spray herbicides on poppy fields.  Make them miserable.  Make it more palatable for them to give Al-Qaeda to us in a bloody box, then to continue to support them.  And then spend the money to help them rebuild what we destroy.  We have this bloody idea that we should be nation building, to heck with that.  The only way an army can do this is to go in and kill however so many as it takes for Afghanis' to decide that supporting Al-Qaeda is bad ju ju and while that is technically possible,  I wouldn't want to live in a country where it could be possible.

PS:  The correct phrase is casus belli the "justification for war".

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

The problem with gorilla wars is not something an army can adjust to.  The concept should be the least force to get the job done.  The Taliban never should have been toppled.  As a gorilla fighter they are undefeatable.  As a government in power the paradigm works against them.   I've said this before, governments can't be gorillas in their own countries.  Declare war on them but don't invade.  Do what they do. Strike and disappear.  Don't conquer.  Don't kill the leadership, make impossible for them to rule.  They build a bridge, then blow it up.  When they build a road, destroy it.  Spray herbicides on poppy fields.  Make them miserable.  Make it more palatable for them to give Al-Qaeda to us in a bloody box, then to continue to support them.  And then spend the money to help them rebuild what we destroy.  We have this bloody idea that we should be nation building, to heck with that.  The only way an army can do this is to go in and kill however so many as it takes for Afghanis' to decide that supporting Al-Qaeda is bad ju ju and while that is technically possible,  I wouldn't want to live in a country where it could be possible.

PS:  The correct phrase is casus belli the "justification for war".

quote>

Right, so let me get this straight. Youre saying we should kill the locals by bombing their houses, poisoning their food and destroying their meager source of income in the hope that they get so tired of it that they just turn over the terrorists to even bigger terrorists. And you dont think there is anything wrong with that kind of reasoning? 

[morriswalters 16]

The bias implied by describing us as terrorists keeps you from seeing the meaning of what I said, I will clarify.  War is the use of force to obtain a political goal.  Use the minimum amount of force.  The idea is not to kill anybody, it's not needed to accomplish the goal.  The idea is to remove their ability to govern, to create uncertainty, to deprive them of the things they want.  Then to give them an alternative and to reward them for seeing things our way.  They do the same thing but have no compunction about killing.  People will die, there is no absolute way to avoid it, but the fewer the better.  I haven't a lot of sympathy for poppy farmers but I don't want to kill them, I want them to be unhappy enough to generate the political will  to obtain the result I would like to see.  Dead people can't do that.  Do you know that there is a theory which says that wounding rather than killing your enemies may be a better use of force since the enemy must care for his wounded and that is harder than recovering the dead?

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

The bias implied by describing us as terrorists keeps you from seeing the meaning of what I said, I will clarify.  War is the use of force to obtain a political goal.  Use the minimum amount of force.  The idea is not to kill anybody, it's not needed to accomplish the goal.  The idea is to remove their ability to govern, to create uncertainty, to deprive them of the things they want.  Then to give them an alternative and to reward them for seeing things our way.  They do the same thing but have no compunction about killing.  People will die, there is no absolute way to avoid it, but the fewer the better.  I haven't a lot of sympathy for poppy farmers but I don't want to kill them, I want them to be unhappy enough to generate the political will  to obtain the result I would like to see.  Dead people can't do that.  Do you know that there is a theory which says that wounding rather than killing your enemies may be a better use of force since the enemy must care for his wounded and that is harder than recovering the dead?

quote>

Wrong. War is the use of force against a government, by the use of a clearly identifiable army, attacking another clearly identifiable army and army and government infrastructure. Terrorism is the use of force against civilians or civilian infrastructure in order to obtain a certain political goal. Since you dont want to bomb the hostiles but the local civilians, what you do falls under the definition of terrorism and not war. 

Also, these tactics never work. If anything, youll make Al Qaida and the Taliban stronger, and you would need to continue either till civilian is dead or joined the enemy. Attacking civilians directly will only piss them off, make them hate you and your way of seeing stuff and justifies everything Al Qaida ever said about the west. Youre right when you say you want the civilians to support you. But thats not gonna happen if you bomb their homes, burn their incomes and kill their kids. Sure, you dont mean to kill them, its just a side effect of dropping bombs on civilian targets. And with every dead civilian, they will only hate you more, and not less. 

[morriswalters 16]

I suppose restating that the idea is to kill no one, but rather making it difficult to live normally, would be a waste of my time.  War is waged by men, but the idea is to use force to accomplish a goal.  It may or may not involve uniforms and the trappings of modern armies.  Making war on  civilians comes to us from Sherman who said that wars were enabled by the populace, hence Sherman's march to the sea.  In terms of the Afghans I must say that I could care less what they think.  I prefer not to leave people who hate me in my wake if at all possible though.  There is no solution that I know of to this issue.  The tug of war between Islam and Christendom has  been going on since Islam and Christianity split.  It ebbs and flows.

[DocRorlach 25]

morriswalter;

Methinks you would like to deep-freeze your cake, give everyone an equal slice, and eat it, too. Provided of course, everyone agrees with your political agenda.

Not wanting to kill anyone does not absolve a government from its actions. Neiterh the US, nor its allies, have the moral high ground in this conflict. As it stands, they have no reason for being there in the first place - except for the previous administration's cowboy antics. Nato simply retaliates one terror attack with another; but since it has money & media on its side (for most of the time), it can sprout false claims about liberty et al.

As for the poppy fields: if the US was serious about killing off one of its most valuable imports, it could simply eradicate the fields themselves. The non-toxic, non-DDT technology exists. And, compared with S. America and Thailand, the fields in Afghanistan are miniscule.

No, the only reason we're still there is purely economic: if the US would return all its troops back inisde a six months period, the economy at home would take a dive worse than that of the pre-war crash, because it would mean unemployment for up to 10 million people; direct and indirect.

The only way the US is going to pull out is if a) the national economy is back at its peak, or b) it has another war on another front. Hello, Iran..

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

I suppose restating that the idea is to kill no one, but rather making it difficult to live normally, would be a waste of my time.  War is waged by men, but the idea is to use force to accomplish a goal.  It may or may not involve uniforms and the trappings of modern armies.  Making war on  civilians comes to us from Sherman who said that wars were enabled by the populace, hence Sherman's march to the sea.  In terms of the Afghans I must say that I could care less what they think.  I prefer not to leave people who hate me in my wake if at all possible though.  There is no solution that I know of to this issue.  The tug of war between Islam and Christendom has  been going on since Islam and Christianity split.  It ebbs and flows.

quote>

The point is that they dont understand your intentions. Sure, you dont want to kill them, but civilians will die when you bomb their farms, bridges, roads etc. And every civilian you kill makes them stronger in their resolve to resist you. What Sherman says is complete tactical and strategical nonsense. Yes, you need people to wage a war, but if youre going to fight the population, you better be prepared to go on till there is no man left to fight you. That is why we invented armies. People who join the army are okay with the risk of getting killed in a war. Thats why its okay to kill soldiers in a war, they are pros who accepted the risks. Civilians obviously dont wanna run the risk of getting killed in a war, thats why they dont join the army. If youre going to involve civilians into a war, regardless of the intent of killing them or just destroying their bridges and sources of income, they wont like you for it, and it will push a lot of people who where previously neutral to start actively resist you. 

There is a reason why no war has ever been cut much shorter because you bombed civilians and the civilians suddenly stopped supporting the whole war. Not even nuking cities had that effect. It was the Japanese Emperor that surrendered because he did not want to see Japan turned into a nuclear wastefield. It was not because suddenly the Japanese civilians all cried out to stop the whole thing and surrender. The allies firebombed every major city of Germany until there was nothing left of any city, but did the civilians start a revolution to stop Hitler and his madness? No, they did not, not even after their whole country was bombed to oblivion. It has been proven again and again in history that aggressive tactics against civilians are a waste of bombs and that they have absolutely no significant effect on shortening the war.